Disney not subject to Anaheim’s ‘living wage’ ballot measure, judge rules - OCR/SCNG

[TP2000]

Many "retired" folks get bored and want to remain active. I know a group of Knott's Associates that work for the joy of getting out of the house and interacting with folks (fellow employees and guests). In fact, they are happy with Minimum wage, because they can work more hours, as after a certain amount of income, their Social Security is taxable.

>>Income Taxes And Your Social Security Benefit
Some of you have to pay federal income taxes on your Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income in addition to your benefits (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return).

You will pay tax on only 85 percent of your Social Security benefits, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:

• file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income*is
  • between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
  • more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
• file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income*that is
  • between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
  • more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.<<

Request to withhold taxes

Submit a request to pay taxes on your Social Security benefit throughout the year instead of paying a big bill at tax time.

www.ssa.gov

It all makes perfect sense. Especially in WDW, where many retired folks work part-time for fun.

But what we've seen here is the complete implosion of the "Living Wage!" argument for Disneyland CM's.

We've finally had it admitted to us that a Living Wage in OC is north of $45 per hour. For churro vendors and ride operators and busboys and cashiers.

 

[CaptinEO]

Not that long ago, this is exactly how it worked. Someone who had a family to support was paid more than someone who only had themselves to support. It was considered the moral thing to do and no one questioned it. But somewhere along the way, we as a society decided that was unfair and discriminatory and mandated that everyone be paid the same. And what happened? Now everyone gets paid the same crap wages. Victory!

What are you talking about? Jobs paid more if you were married or had kids? I doubt it.

 

[CaptinEO]

I like how people on this board act as if an entry level worker can ONLY work at Disneyland.

I worked at Six Flags without folks on message boards vouching for me about how magical I made their day or how I need to make enough to buy a condo in Southern California.

If these minimum wage jobs all truly became "living wage" money (which is certainly not 18 an hour), you can bet I'd be leaving my current job.

I'd estimate living wage to be at 40 an hour minimum IMO.

 

[Tom P.]

What are you talking about? Jobs paid more if you were married or had kids? I doubt it.

Yes.

 

[Heppenheimer]

What are you talking about? Jobs paid more if you were married or had kids? I doubt it.

It sort of works this way in the military. If you live off post, your housing allowance pay is higher "with dependents" than "without". But it's just an either/or, and it doesn't go up proportionately with each extra dependent. Otherwise, people would probably try to claim their entire extended family as such.

 

[flynnibus]

We really need to move away from this idea that low wage workers are "young people in their 20s who should just get a room mate". It's a myth that ignores the structural problems in labor economics that are doing harm to those at the bottom and sabotaging the overall health of the economy.

Then maybe instead of 'just pay everyone' -- people should focus on why these people can't get a better job than 'some 20 something living with a mate'.

"just pay everyone a living wage" is the equivalent of "just give everyone a trophy". Not because it's 'everyone is a winner' but because you are taking out the differentiation and are just appeasing vs actually achieving. "just pay everyone" is not a mathematically sound answer - it's an emotional one.

Not all jobs are complex enough to support the cost of supporting a family. Someone who needs to support a family shouldn't be trapped in only being able to get work that anyone can do with 0-5hrs of training.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Here's my thing: I think a living wage should be determined at the individual level, meaning how much would it cost, per hour, for an individual to support solely themselves. There should not be graduated scales to account for marriage or children. Both spouses should be able to make it work should both be living off of the living wage, and a hot take - if you're having kids, then plan ahead and work to strive beyond surviving off the bare minimum before having them.

Yes, there's circumstances that aren't being factored in here - disability, divorce, etc. - but since that doesn't apply to a majority of the population, I say take the $22 an hour TP2000 put forward as the living wage in the OC and make it work. That'll bring in roughly $3K a month - enough for a livable 1 bedroom and a person with moderate bills to survive.

 

[el_super]

Here's my thing: I think a living wage should be determined at the individual level, meaning how much would it cost, per hour, for an individual to support solely themselves.

That's all that really needs to be said here. People in this thread are getting way too hung up on the idea of a living wage because it's an easy talking point to try to tear down. It's a a cheap and easy way of thinking they know the situation without having to really challenge themselves. It is of course, far more nuanced than that.

To bring this closer to home, SF Gate quoted a 2018 survey of Disneyland of Disneyland Cast Members and found that:

• 11% of Disneyland employees reported experiencing homelessness in the previous two years,
• 68% were food insecure
• 73% said they do not earn enough for basic living expenses

These points have real world consequences to the people expressing them. Someone can adopt the most cynical position in the world that unskilled labor should be cheap, that the job market should dictate wages, or that the CMs are just downright responsible for their own financial well-being, but you're still missing the bigger point. How the CMs working in the park feel. How they are able to do their job every day. It's tough to put on a happy face and serve guests to the level people expect at Disneyland, when you don't know where your next meal is coming from.


Long story short: if you're concerned about the guest experience, and how CMs are treating people in the park, advocate for higher wages and greater benefits for Cast Members.

 

[Disney Irish]

These conversations about a "Living Wage" really get lost in the political muck, but loses sight on one important factor. Wages haven't kept up with the rest of the market.

Looking at the largest cost that one has to pay, housing, making minimum wage you used to be able to afford a house or an apartment.

In the 1970s the median house price in CA was approx $24,000, and with an average mortgage rate of 8.5% at the time your monthly mortgage would be around $185. With the minimum wage of $1.65 in California you'd make approx $286 per month. And after saving for a bit for a down payment you could afford that house. It would be very tight, but it could be done especially since food and other costs at the time were way less than now. And how do I know this, because that is exactly what my dad did and I'm sure a lot of posters parents (grandparents) did the same at that time.

Now flip that to 2021 where the median house price in Orange County is $1.1M. And even if we take the starting wage at DL, which is higher than the CA minimum wage, of $15 there is no way to afford a house let alone an apartment in Orange County today.

That is what is lost in these conversations. Its really not about the wages itself, its about the fact that in this country the rising costs of housing and goods has outpaced wages dramatically.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

These conversations about a "Living Wage" really get lost in the political muck, but loses sight on one important factor. Wages haven't kept up with the rest of the market.

Looking at the largest cost that one has to pay, housing, making minimum wage you used to be able to afford a house or an apartment.

In the 1970s the median house price in CA was approx $24,000, and with an average mortgage rate of 8.5% at the time your monthly mortgage would be around $185. With the minimum wage of $1.65 in California you'd make approx $286 per month. And after saving for a bit for a down payment you could afford that house. It would be very tight, but it could be done especially since food and other costs at the time were way less than now. And how do I know this, because that is exactly what my dad did and I'm sure a lot of posters parents (grandparents) did the same at that time.

Now flip that to 2021 where the median house price in Orange County is $1.1M. And even if we take the starting wage at DL, which is higher than the CA minimum wage, of $15 there is no way to afford a house let alone an apartment in Orange County today.

That is what is lost in these conversations. Its really not about the wages itself, its about the fact that in this country the rising costs of housing and goods has outpaced wages dramatically.

The problem with this is a $1.1 million home has a monthly mortgage payment of about $7000 and a minimum down payment of about $40,000, that would require a wage of approximately $50 an hour to even have a chance at ever owning a home.

Maybe we should be talking about affordable housing rather than livable wages, that seems to be the bigger problem.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Maybe we should be talking about affordable housing rather than livable wages, that seems to be the bigger problem.

1000%. Affordable housing is truly the problem here. While the cost of other necessities - food, gas, etc. - are also inflated, keeping rent capped at 30% of net would truly solve a lot of problems here. No reason why rents and housing costs are as high as they are. None.

 

[Disney Irish]

The problem with this is a $1.1 million home has a monthly mortgage payment of about $7000 and a minimum down payment of about $40,000, that would require a wage of approximately $50 an hour to even have a chance at ever owning a home.

Maybe we should be talking about affordable housing rather than livable wages, that seems to be the bigger problem.

This is very true. But unless there is a complete housing market reset, which is never likely going to happen for a variety of reasons, its very unlikely we'll ever have any meaningful affordable housing in this country.

This is why this talk about a "Living Wage" came about.

 

[flynnibus]

That is what is lost in these conversations. Its really not about the wages itself, its about the fact that in this country the rising costs of housing and goods has outpaced wages dramatically.

... and simply changing wages won't fix that. It will just fuel the same broken model to new heights.

 

[SuddenStorm]

No reason why rents and housing costs are as high as they are. None.

When the demand is greater than the supply, prices tend to rise.

 

[Disney Irish]

... and simply changing wages won't fix that. It will just fuel the same broken model to new heights.

No doubt, but as the saying goes, you have to start somewhere.

 

[flynnibus]

1000%. Affordable housing is truly the problem here. While the cost of other necessities - food, gas, etc. - are also inflated, keeping rent capped at 30% of net would truly solve a lot of problems here. No reason why rents and housing costs are as high as they are. None.

Are the rents and housing empty? No? Well then that says there is a reason they are high.

And handing out money nearly universally won't make that any better.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

When the demand increases the supply, prices tend to rise.

I understand, but given housing should be a universal right, I don't think we should be leaving the cost of living to the whim of the free markets. This is where capitalism and ethics mix like oil and water.

 

[flynnibus]

No doubt, but as the saying goes, you have to start somewhere.

And the term 'unintended consequences' should be on the top of people's mind before they advocate for 'well we gotta start somewhere'. When your solution makes things worse, it shouldn't have been done... and certainly not just for emotional gain.

You can't solve fundamental problems by just handing out money. Not sure why everyone keeps ignoring that simple truth that shows itself everywhere...

If your town doesn't have enough modest housing - giving the same population more money simply drives up the prices for said housing.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

You can't solve fundamental problems by just handing out money. Not sure why everyone keeps ignoring that simple truth that shows itself everywhere...

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This is very true. But unless there is a complete housing market reset, which is never likely going to happen for a variety of reasons, its very unlikely we'll ever have any meaningful affordable housing in this country.

This is why this talk about a "Living Wage" came about.

I’d say a living wage of $50 an hour is infinitely less likely than another housing reset.

I’ve always wondered how places like California and NY haven’t had a housing crash, in my mind there simply can’t be enough wealthy people to sustain million dollar home prices but somehow CA and NY haven’t crashed yet. The massive rise in housing prices in places like Vegas and Orlando make a little more sense to me because it’s primarily implants from out of state who sold their houses for a million that are driving the increases here… but who’s buying their million dollar homes that’s allowing them to move in the first place?